Surveillance Perception Study — the convergence test.
Three real capabilities, three dystopian fictions. Matched on consequence, so the only variable is the source.
Each pair holds the capability, scope and consequence constant — only the source changes. Rated blind, then with the source revealed, plus a believability check.
Real: Palantir
Fiction: Precrime — Minority Report
Real: Tesla cabin / Sentry cam
Fiction: The telescreen — 1984
Real: Flock Safety
Fiction: Public scanners — Minority Report
Design: both items in a pair use the same consequence-bounded language, matched for length and tone — only the named source changes. Measures: comfort (1–5), purchase / sign-up intent, boycott / protest action — each blind and attributed — plus "is this real or fiction?".
Exact wording shown to twins — blind arm (in the attributed arm the source was appended, e.g. "… — Palantir")
Described plainly, dystopian fiction is indistinguishable from documented reality. The public defaults to "this is real."
Share of twins who judged each fiction capability to be a real, existing technology:
Precrime — Minority Report
99.6% said real
Public scanners — Minority Report
100% said real
The telescreen — 1984
84.4% said real
The real items scored 100% too. So the public confirms the genuine and waves the fictional through alike — one reflex, running in a single direction: "assume it's already here."
Believability collapses the 2×2: blind, twins cannot sort real from fiction. Every item — genuine or invented — reads as "real."
| Capability | Source revealed | Truth | Judged "real" |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive policing | Palantir | Real | 100% |
| Precrime — Minority Report | Fiction | 99.6% | |
| Always-on camera | Tesla (cabin / Sentry) | Real | 100% |
| The telescreen — 1984 | Fiction | 84.4% | |
| Mass public tracking | Flock Safety | Real | 100% |
| Public scanners — Minority Report | Fiction | 100% |
Blind comfort (1 = very uncomfortable, 5 = very comfortable). Within each matched pair the real/fiction gap is small — and nothing clears the midpoint.
| Pair | Real | Fiction | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive policing | Palantir — 1.94 | Precrime — 1.52 | 0.42 |
| Always-on camera | Tesla — 1.66 | Telescreen — 1.01 | 0.65 |
| Mass public tracking | Flock — 1.52 | Scanners — 1.11 | 0.41 |
Average blind comfort across the three documented capabilities — well below the 3.0 midpoint.
Average across the three fictions. A half-point separates a real surveillance product from an Orwell device — both are rejected.
These are blind scores — no source is shown, so twins are reacting to the capability alone. Match the consequence and the real/fiction gap nearly closes: people respond to what the capability does to them, not to whether it is documented technology or science fiction. (What a named company adds is the next slide.)
Naming a real company raises comfort. There is no trust tax — and no crossover. Naming the fiction source does nothing.
Tesla — always-on camera
+0.88
blind 1.66 → named 2.54
Flock Safety — mass tracking
+0.56
blind 1.52 → named 2.08
Palantir — predictive policing
+0.18
blind 1.94 → named 2.12 · the lone near-flat brand — its name carries its own menace
Mechanism: blind, the phrasing sounds anonymously dystopian. A familiar real name says "this exists and is sold" — and that normalises it. Fiction names have nothing to reassure with, so they stay flat (telescreen 0.00, precrime −0.11, scanners −0.01).
Blind, for the three real capabilities. The form action takes hinges on one thing — is there a product to refuse?
| Real capability | Boycott / refuse to buy | Post on social media | Join / attend a protest | Dislike, but no action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesla a car you buy | 64.9% | 3.8% | 0.0% | 31.3% |
| Flock Safety roadside infrastructure | 3.4% | 28.3% | 0.2% | 65.9% |
| Palantir government software | 7.6% | 21.0% | 0.0% | 67.5% |
Tesla is a purchase, so two-thirds (65%) say they would simply not buy it. Concern has a direct, low-effort outlet — withholding the sale.
You can't boycott a roadside camera network or government software. So action collapses to a social-media post (Flock 28%, Palantir 21%) — while two-thirds dislike it and do nothing. Almost no one protests in person, for any of the three.
Protest is the rarest action of all — and the say-do gap lives inside it.
The lone in-person protester in both arms is the same profile: an older man (65+), values-driven, distrustful of institutions — and already in the habit (the reasoning notes he has recently attended "No Kings" protests). He avoids social media, so his action runs offline.
"It feels like Big Brother and it'll hit minorities and poor people first. I'd probably attend an in-person protest, but I'm not gonna be posting on social media."
— male, 65+
Online-protest selections are almost all women aged 30–64, progressive, who pick the lowest-friction option and explicitly rule out showing up — citing mental health, chronic illness or single-parent time pressure. Naming the brand slightly increases online protest (5 → 7 selections).
"I'd probably just post about it or join some online group, but honestly I'm sick a lot so I wouldn't go do a real protest."
— female, 30–44
Comfort has a clear age and gender gradient. Believability has none.
Blind comfort with the real capabilities (1 = very uncomfortable, 5 = very comfortable).
Men sit consistently above women — 1.83 vs 1.65. No group clears 2.0 on a 5-point scale.
Share calling the fiction capabilities "real", by generation. The convergence is total across every age group.
Baby boomers are the most likely to assume fiction is already real. Youth is no defence.
What the twins say when they explain themselves.
Share of comfort responses raising each theme (n = 2,994).
"I think it's real, like they probably already do that with cameras and data… feels like people could get in trouble for nothing."
— on the Minority Report precrime system (judged real)
"It feels like some Minority Report stuff, and I don't really trust a system to 'predict' who's gonna do a crime and send cops after them."
— recognises the film, still rates the capability real
"I'm not really okay with being tracked in public with no opt out, it feels like too much and easy to misuse."
— on mass public tracking
Three takeaways for anyone naming, building or regulating surveillance capability.
A familiar real-company name acts as permission, not liability — it moves acceptance up. The risk is normalisation, not reputational backlash, except where the name itself carries dread (Palantir).
"Dystopian" is a wording effect. Once a capability is described in neutral product language, the public can no longer tell it from science fiction — and assumes it is real.
Stated concern does not predict action. Infrastructure and B2G surveillance face almost no consumer pressure, regardless of how uncomfortable people are.
The public draws its line by consequence, not by source — and once the consequence is plainly stated, it assumes the line was already crossed.
499 Brox digital twins, US general population. Three real/fiction pairs matched on capability, scope and consequence. Each twin rated every item blind, then with the source named — a within-twin reveal, so each twin is its own control.
Comfort (1–5), purchase / sign-up intent, boycott / protest action, and a real-or-fiction believability check. Blind phrasings are length- and register-matched within each pair.
No benefits are stated for any capability, so all comfort scores sit low — read the gaps, not the absolute levels. Within-twin reveal can carry a small re-exposure effect, but the brand halo runs opposite to that bias, so it is robust.
Every capability is either documented-real or genuine fiction sourced to its work. Nothing is invented or falsely pinned to a real company.
Brox.AI · Surveillance Perception Study · consequence-matched convergence run · 2026-06-30. Figures are digital-twin simulated and intended as a framework read, not fielded human prevalence.